Judgment 1. Heard both sides. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. The issue lies in a very narrow compass. 2. The petitioner is a Trade Union representing Contract Labourers employed by the Contractors in TASMAC. The grievance of the petitioner Union is that Provident Fund was not remitted in the case of the Contract Labourers. The Provident Fund Authorities took action for not covering those employees under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952. 3. In these circumstances, the first respondent TASMAC, principal employer, remitted a sum of Rs.1,45,65,059.80. Still when the matter came up on 01.08.2014, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the second respondent that though the amount was remitted, the details of the names of the Contract Labourers was not given and therefore, it was of no use. Hence, I have passed the following order on 01.08.2014:- “The matter is relating to remittance of contribution towards provident fund for the contract employees. 2. The learned counsel for the second respondent Provident Fund Department has stated that with great difficulty, the Provident Fund authorities are able to recover the contributions from the first respondent. That is, the first respondent TASMAC remitted the contributions. But according to the learned counsel for the second respondent, the statutorily prescribed forms giving names and details of the employees are not furnished and therefore, the Department is not able to understand as to whose benefits the contributions were made. 3. In these circumstances, the first respondent TASMAC is directed to submit the requisite forms to the second respondent within a period of two weeks from today, otherwise, the matter will be viewed very seriously and this Court will be constrained to issue direction to the second respondent to launch prosecution against the first respondent for not furnishing the complete details of the contract employees. 4. Post this matter on 18.08.2014 as first item.” 4. Thereafter, the list of Contract Labourers to whose account the amount was remitted was furnished and the same is seen from the letter dated 12.08.2014 of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. 5. Today the learned counsel for the second respondent has stated that in view of the letter dated 12.08.2014 of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, the first respondent TASMAC complied with the requirements of the Provident Fund authorities. 6. 5. Today the learned counsel for the second respondent has stated that in view of the letter dated 12.08.2014 of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, the first respondent TASMAC complied with the requirements of the Provident Fund authorities. 6. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice para 9 of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent and the same is extracted hereunder: “9. It is submitted that the prayer in the writ petition cannot be granted as against this respondent for want of particulars of employees which are yet to be given by the first respondent. Once the first respondent gives particulars of employees, only then this respondent can take action to allot EPF number to concerned employees, without which is it impossible for this respondent to comply with the prayer made by the writ petitioner.” 7. As per the averment made in para 9 of the counter affidavit, the Provident Fund authorities are inclined to allot EPF account number once the particulars of the employees are furnished by the first respondent. 8. It is admitted that the particulars of the employees, that is, the Contract Labourers are furnished by the TASMAC to the Provident Fund authorities. Hence, the second respondent is directed to allot EPF code to the individual Contract Labourers, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.